Why? So far all the access management in Fibery happens on the App level. The only way to share an individual Entity (ex. a Task) with a teammate is via read-only external sharing :poop: [image] Introducing Entity-level permissions will unlock new opportunities: Collaborating with clients As we’…

It is implemented in fact https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Share-Entity-233

Welcome @Lee_Denny to the Fibery Community! :smile:

For the common scenario of users needing access rights to organic groups and organic group content , where the term group is not the permission groups in the admin section, but groups that can be created by users without admin intervention: If we have the same database ‘Task’ that is used across 10…

Also, if permissions can be depedent on an entity level relationship, then a feature/setting ‘required relationship’ is needed in the database field setting, to make sure that people do not forget to assign it to a group/project if that enables the permissions.

Based on my understanding of what you are describing, this is possible with the new permissions model, using the ‘extend’ capability. That is to say, if a Team is linked to Tasks (one-to-many) it is possible to configure the permissions so that access to the Team automatically implies access to its…

[image] Chr1sG: the ‘extend’ capability That is amazing, looking forward to that! Would the ‘extend’ capability apply to the first level relationship, or can it extend unlimited in a hierarchical relationship tree? I’m thinking of for example top-down lockdown of: Company > Department > Gro…

[image] Yuri_BC: That is amazing, looking forward to that! The extend capability already exists in the (experimental) entity permissions, but for the default access levels, it only applies to one level down. [image] Yuri_BC: can it extend unlimited in a hierarchical relationship tree? …

We often need to share individual entities in Fibery with our clients. We are a custom dev shop and want to, for example, create a checklist for our clients to be able to complete themselves without having to add full user seats for every person working for the client. Being able to either add gues…

[image] Chr1sG: When we roll out custom access templates, they will allow propagation to multiple (but not unlimited) levels. I think that people are generally accustomed to the idea of folders and that everything in a restricted team folder is therefore also restricted to team members only. …

[image] Yuri_BC: If the levels of propagation is limited, then I think users need to be warned that if they create child relations beyond that, it will not inherit the access restrictions. How would they be warned? Access is managed through overloading of granted (positive) permissions, not t…

Related: [image] Exploring solutions for a controlled relationship structure Get Help I don’t think field level permissions is actually the solution to this. A relationship is actually two fields (one at each end) so it begs the question which field governs the permissions…

[DONE] Entity-level permissions

Ideas & Features

Yuri_BC December 23, 2023, 7:43pm 105

Topic		Replies	Views
Permissions - entities vs views Ideas & Features permissions	36	1915	December 7, 2022
Nov 16, 2023 / 🔒 Entity permissions (experimental) Changelog	59	2196	June 18, 2024
Feature Request: Share Space but restrict entity views Ideas & Features permissions	53	722	March 29, 2025
Q3 2025 Roadmap News & Announcements	76	1435	September 15, 2025
May 21, 2026 / 🫣 Manage users visibility, Send web request action in automations Changelog	22	371	May 28, 2026

[DONE] Entity-level permissions

Related topics